Nature's Good.

[s1eep]

I theorize that Nature is a "greater good", and creates lesser goods that harmonize with it. Ultimately, I'm suggesting the universe is good, but I'm redefining good, taking it away from religious belief into rationality.

The planet is a prime example of nature acting as a greater good amongst lesser goods, this is by no means an insult to their goodness, the term ‘lesser’ refers only to the dimensions (such as size) of humans and animals on the planet; they are ultimately good.

Why are they good, what defines them as good? Everything has to be good in accordance with the nature that homes them (i.e. planet Earth), or they cease to exist; so nature decides what’s good and evil (ourselves most explicitly), it is the greater good that we can either harmonize or de-harmonize with, and most significantly for us, the planet.

We can be relaxed with the definition of good, it can be used in the useful and real sense, where, for example, I would not go near a diseased human because that would be “evil” in accordance with my objective, which is to live. If we rationalize and highlight in our minds, our home planet, Earth, and use our objective (mental capabilities) minds, we can find out what’s good and evil for the livelihood on this planet. Good and evil exist as real concepts, it’s not all spurring from the bible, or God. You don’t have to picture morality as something exclusive to an out-of-dimension observer who judges you at the end, as there is a useful way to use good and evil that has actual beneficent or maleficent effects on our lives.

[Iota]

 

I theorize that Nature is a "greater good", and creates lesser goods that harmonize with it. Ultimately, I'm suggesting the universe is good, but I'm redefining good, taking it away from religious belief into rationality.

 

Let's stop you there. "Good" and "bad" are ultimately meaningless in the universe, other than to the human mind. They're subjective notions brought about by what makes us feel good and what makes us feel bad. That's it.

 

Now if any religion claims to have a monopoly on what's 'good', as opposed to it being innate to the majority of human beings, we can laugh it off. Because we know it's not remotely true.

 

But for you to devise this crackpot theory, is pointless, meaningless, false and counter-productive to your claimed goal. You're taking the definition of good away from religion and giving it to a new form of stupid superstition.

 

I suggest you rethink your strategy completely and try being much more scientific in future.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Iota

[s1eep]

How is it stupid?

 

The theory expressed in the original post is that nature is a greater good, and things are good because of this (that’s why they are good---which is what you’re asking). Remember, this is not individual things, this is everything together. I am not the true nature, so you wouldn’t accredit my personified view of things, you would only take account of the whole. To nature, things are either evil or good. In essence, I am redefining good, taking it away from religious belief and into rationality. Is nature (the whole) greater than individual humans? Yes, in many ways, as expressed in the original post and later posts. You are above nature, because you are nature, but nature is also beyond you, it is a greater good. You are in control of your body, but beyond your control is a heartbeat and bodily functions. The planet is greater than humans in mass, it is their habitat, and it’s a fine representative of the greater good of nature.

Why is nature good? Because it facilitates (how it facilitates everything is a list too long to write here; we can use “good” as a loose-term to describe this generosity, or ‘help’, from nature) beings in the universe---that are good in accordance with the facility; humans for example had to work hard to survive until civilization advanced to the modern era; animals are focused survivors when not kept in homes as pets. These things are being what nature intended them to be when the world found the harmony to create life. It may have been spontaneous, but I doubt life would have come about if there was no food on the land or oxygen in the atmosphere. We have reason, if we take account of the whole, “we”, or “us”, and not the individual factors. For example, taking account of the body shows that you have a bias toward family-orientated survival. It’s probable that if there were one trillion Earths, and they all had someone like you on it, in most cases you would be surviving and helping your family survive, the latter would be where you were on a internet forum.

And since the last post was nothing more than an hypocritical 'meaningless' insult, with no actual inclination to discuss the original post, I'll take it as your comment is invalid, thanks for your input.

Edited August 20, 2014 by s1eep

[swansont]

The theory expressed in the original post is that nature is a greater good

 

And you still haven't defined what this means. How does one decide whether the universe is good? How does one quantify goodness? What is the metric for assessing this? i.e. how do you make the objective rather than subjective?

[Iota]

 

How is it stupid?

 

"--"

And since the last post was nothing more than an hypocritical 'meaningless' insult, with no actual inclination to discuss the original post, I'll take it as your comment is invalid, thanks for your input.

 

 

It wasn't a personalised insult, but yes I was attacking your idea, with a lack of sensitivity, perhaps. But my position remains unchanged.

 

 

 

How is it stupid?

 

The theory expressed in the original post is that nature is a greater good, and things are good because of this (that’s why they are good---which is what you’re asking). Remember, this is not individual things, this is everything together. I am not the true nature, so you wouldn’t accredit my personified view of things, you would only take account of the whole. To nature, things are either evil or good. In essence, I am redefining good, taking it away from religious belief and into rationality. Is nature (the whole) greater than individual humans? Yes, in many ways, as expressed in the original post and later posts. You are above nature, because you are nature, but nature is also beyond you, it is a greater good. You are in control of your body, but beyond your control is a heartbeat and bodily functions. The planet is greater than humans in mass, it is their habitat, and it’s a fine representative of the greater good of nature.

Why is nature good? Because it facilitates (how it facilitates everything is a list too long to write here; we can use “good” as a loose-term to describe this generosity, or ‘help’, from nature) beings in the universe---that are good in accordance with the facility; humans for example had to work hard to survive until civilization advanced to the modern era; animals are focused survivors when not kept in homes as pets. These things are being what nature intended them to be when the world found the harmony to create life. It may have been spontaneous, but I doubt life would have come about if there was no food on the land or oxygen in the atmosphere. We have reason, if we take account of the whole, “we”, or “us”, and not the individual factors. For example, taking account of the body shows that you have a bias toward family-orientated survival. It’s probable that if there were one trillion Earths, and they all had someone like you on it, in most cases you would be surviving and helping your family survive, the latter would be where you were on a internet forum.

And since the last post was nothing more than an hypocritical 'meaningless' insult, with no actual inclination to discuss the original post, I'll take it as your comment is invalid, thanks for your input.

 

 

Exactly what I meant when I said you should be more scientific in future, drop this theory of yours. You're on a fool's errand. You're attempting to create new definitions, which are unnecessary, confusing; science already has definitions for the things to which you refer. Why would we go to the effort of learning YOUR definitions, when you refuse to make use of the existing, accepted, universal definitions of the English language? It's madness.

 

The terms you should be making use of here are 'environmentally sustainable', 'mutualism', 'destructive' and other scientific/biological definitions. Yet instead you insist on stubbornly redefining things and applying them universally incorrectly, on your mission to somehow attack all of religion.

[s1eep]

 

And you still haven't defined what this means. How does one decide whether the universe is good? How does one quantify goodness? What is the metric for assessing this? i.e. how do you make the objective rather than subjective?

Again, I am redefining good, so imagine there wasn't already a concept for good and evil.

 

I said it in one thread, what is a term we use to describe "deliciousness' for one objective, and 'coolness' we use to describe another? I'm spotting a pattern in the full and cohesive whole of the universe.

 

Because everything nature is to individuals within nature, I have defined as good; this is my starting point. It's good on account of the lesser goods it creates; and they are good because the judge of what's good is above them in the hierarchy (natural selection, planets to humans, etc)

[swansont]

Again, I am redefining good, so imagine there wasn't already a concept for good and evil.

 

 

But you haven't actually given a solid definition. You've basically defined good as survival and evil as the opposite. Meaning if I kill someone for food, I'm good because I survived and the one who didn't was evil. Which justifies me killing him or her. That's effed up.

[Phi for All]

Because everything nature is to individuals within nature, I have defined as good; this is my starting point. It's good on account of the lesser goods it creates; and they are good because the judge of what's good is above them in the hierarchy (natural selection, planets to humans, etc)

 

In attempting to redefine commonly used terminology, you're effectively increasing the useless "noise" that the rest of us have to sift through to find the "signal" so we can understand what you're talking about. You put a bunch of words together like a tossed salad with no regard for how they sound to people who are used to mainstream terminology.

 

This all takes more time than many people feel it's worth, but you then make things worse by trying to defend your actions using more broken terminology, and even go so far as to claim what other people say is "invalid". You're getting so much pushback because you insist on reworking the dictionary, you assume AND insist you're right, and don't explain what you mean in a way we can understand. This is plainly a case where what's in your mind isn't coming across correctly.

 

"Because everything nature is to individuals within nature, I have defined as good; this is my starting point." You obviously know what this is supposed to mean, but I've tried several times and it makes no sense grammatically or scientifically. It's a HORRIBLE starting point if you can't explain it to others.

[s1eep]

 

In attempting to redefine commonly used terminology, you're effectively increasing the useless "noise" that the rest of us have to sift through to find the "signal" so we can understand what you're talking about. You put a bunch of words together like a tossed salad with no regard for how they sound to people who are used to mainstream terminology.

 

This all takes more time than many people feel it's worth, but you then make things worse by trying to defend your actions using more broken terminology, and even go so far as to claim what other people say is "invalid". You're getting so much pushback because you insist on reworking the dictionary, you assume AND insist you're right, and don't explain what you mean in a way we can understand. This is plainly a case where what's in your mind isn't coming across correctly.

 

"Because everything nature is to individuals within nature, I have defined as good; this is my starting point." You obviously know what this is supposed to mean, but I've tried several times and it makes no sense grammatically or scientifically. It's a HORRIBLE starting point if you can't explain it to others.

But if good is not real, what is it's importance as a word? I see no problem in changing it if there is a better suited definition, and I haven't strayed too far from the original definitions.

 

For aid with this thread, here are the original definitions of good:

 

1. to be desired or approved of.
2. having the required qualities; of a high standard.

   noun

1. that which is morally right; righteousness.
2. benefit or advantage to someone or something.

 

The mind is free until it is forced to yield to hunger, thirst and tiredness, where it has to eat, drink and sleep if it wants to continue; there are times where we are objective, some objectives are more significant to us than others (such as eating, drinking and seelping); we are not fully purposeless when we consider the bond we share with nature...

Edited August 20, 2014 by s1eep

[Ophiolite]

 

I would not go near a diseased human because that would be “evil” in accordance with my objective, which is to live.

 

Most societies would take the view that aiding a diseased human would be the ethical, i.e. good thing to do.

 

On what basis do you justify calling your desire to live good, other than by the circular argument of saying that is how it is defined? You might as well call it Cyril, it would make as much sense.

 

This is the first time on any forum I've thought someone would actually benefit from a thorough reading of Plato. I suggest you spend a year studying his writings then you might not post so much nonsense.

[s1eep]

Most societies would take the view that aiding a diseased human would be the ethical, i.e. good thing to do.

They have a different objective than the one I gave as an example.

 

And just because it's good for me doesn't mean it has to be good for you, there are some cases where the morality could be between two or more parties who faced a similar objective; such as, life on the planet.

Edited August 20, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

But if good is not real, what is it's importance as a word?

 

This is another aggravating habit you've fallen into. Where did ANYONE even hint that "good is not real"? It's been said that good isn't an objective assessment, since it varies from person to person. It's like you have some canned responses you're bound and determined to drag out even if nobody is actually making an argument. Can you see this from our perspective?

 

I was pointing out the dangers of changing definitions on people you're having a discussion with, and you respond as if I said, "Hey, good isn't real". I didn't, I can support that by re-reading what I wrote. You should try this.

 

 

It's good on account of the lesser goods it creates; and they are good because the judge of what's good is above them in the hierarchy (natural selection, planets to humans, etc)

 

Would you like a short list of bad things that also create "lesser goods" (if I understand this made-up phrase correctly)?

 

Lying is bad, right? But as children, it's an important step in our development psychologically, since it signals the start of planning ahead for the best results. Lying tells parents their child is thinking about the future and how to make it better.

 

Breaking the law is bad, right? But if nobody broke the law, we'd never know that some laws are bad. My state no longer puts people in jail for A YEAR for smoking pot, but this would never have changed if so many people didn't break the law to show how silly it was.

 

Having a fever is a bad thing, right? But raising your body temperature is the body's way of killing off infections, which contributes to overall health.

 

Context is everything, and your redefined system seems to throw a big generalization blanket over the concept of good. I also don't understand why you mention "the judge of what's good is above them in the hierarchy (natural selection, planets to humans, etc)". This seems to imply that Earth is our judge on what is good. This assigns mental process capabilities to an inanimate object, which is every bit as supernatural as any deist position.

[swansont]

Absolutes are always wrong and generalizations are never correct.

[s1eep]

 

This is another aggravating habit you've fallen into. Where did ANYONE even hint that "good is not real"? It's been said that good isn't an objective assessment, since it varies from person to person. It's like you have some canned responses you're bound and determined to drag out even if nobody is actually making an argument. Can you see this from our perspective?

 

I was pointing out the dangers of changing definitions on people you're having a discussion with, and you respond as if I said, "Hey, good isn't real". I didn't, I can support that by re-reading what I wrote. You should try this.

 

 

 

Would you like a short list of bad things that also create "lesser goods" (if I understand this made-up phrase correctly)?

 

Lying is bad, right? But as children, it's an important step in our development psychologically, since it signals the start of planning ahead for the best results. Lying tells parents their child is thinking about the future and how to make it better.

 

Breaking the law is bad, right? But if nobody broke the law, we'd never know that some laws are bad. My state no longer puts people in jail for A YEAR for smoking pot, but this would never have changed if so many people didn't break the law to show how silly it was.

 

Having a fever is a bad thing, right? But raising your body temperature is the body's way of killing off infections, which contributes to overall health.

 

Context is everything, and your redefined system seems to throw a big generalization blanket over the concept of good. I also don't understand why you mention "the judge of what's good is above them in the hierarchy (natural selection, planets to humans, etc)". This seems to imply that Earth is our judge on what is good. This assigns mental process capabilities to an inanimate object, which is every bit as supernatural as any deist position.

How is it not an objective assessment? We have hunger, which implies we are to eat or we are to die. this happens simultaneously and dynamically to thirst. I can objectively assess both objectives forced upon me through hunger and thirst, and come to the conclusion that I probably will do the good thing for the combined objective of survival. When matters that concern two or more parties are involved, then the objective assessment is between two people so even in the sense of communication and humanity I'm being rational. I have applied value to the human species in the form of nature's support of existence.

 

And I wouldn't consider any of these things bad, and it isn't considered bad by nature (it preserves); we developed a sense of pain for a reason; how did some Africans evolve to be Africans if they have always been suffering? I wasn't so hasty to blame nature for evils in the world...

Edited August 21, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

And I wouldn't consider any of these things bad, and it isn't considered bad by nature (it preserves);

Nature considers things? Do you have any support for the idea of nature being capable of thought?

 

we developed a sense of pain for a reason;

I don't understand why you brought this up, it seems completely out of context. Why do you mention this?

 

how did some Africans evolve to be Africans if they have always been suffering?

Again, I'm baffled. Within Africa, there are countless separate populations that are affected differently by changes in allele frequency. There is no single "African evolution", just as being African has absolutely no bearing on anything but geographical location. And I can't even begin to imagine how you're trying to tie another subjective concept like "suffering" to evolution or Africans in general. Baffling.

 

I wasn't so hasty to blame nature for evils in the world...

And since no one else did, I have to wonder why you feel the need to defend this stance. This is another example of your preconceptions causing you to argue from a "canned response" position. You create strawmen to battle but ignore the real arguments, what people are ACTUALLY saying.

 

I'd still like to know how you feel about bad things that create good things. Like a senseless death that galvanizes a community to make changes to prevent recurrence. If your definition of good requires that lesser goods be created, this senseless death seems to fill the bill.

[s1eep]

Nature considers things? Do you have any support for the idea of nature being capable of thought?

 

I don't understand why you brought this up, it seems completely out of context. Why do you mention this?

 

Again, I'm baffled. Within Africa, there are countless separate populations that are affected differently by changes in allele frequency. There is no single "African evolution", just as being African has absolutely no bearing on anything but geographical location. And I can't even begin to imagine how you're trying to tie another subjective concept like "suffering" to evolution or Africans in general. Baffling.

 

And since no one else did, I have to wonder why you feel the need to defend this stance. This is another example of your preconceptions causing you to argue from a "canned response" position. You create strawmen to battle but ignore the real arguments, what people are ACTUALLY saying.

 

I'd still like to know how you feel about bad things that create good things. Like a senseless death that galvanizes a community to make changes to prevent recurrence. If your definition of good requires that lesser goods be created, this senseless death seems to fill the bill.

You implied I hastily blamed nature for evils when you assumed I automatically thought these things (mentioned in your post) were 'bad'.

 

Let me rephrase my statement, rather than 'consider', 'treat', nature doesn't treat these things as though they were evil, they are treated as though they are relative. A relationship consists of two or more parties, and these parties co-exist, not separate to each other (lots of bubbles together, rather than each individual a bubble and no co-existence with other bubbles).

 

About Africans, for billions of years before they evolved to humans, they obviously weren't suffering as much. Humans are an advanced species, we don't come about through only passiveness, or only weakness, it takes hard work (years of survival, sometimes in tough conditions). It has not always been the case where South Africans were suffering. I'm basically agreeing with your words about how these things, that I may consider evil, aren't evil because of the science behind it. I didn't consider them evil, this is one of the reasons why. The application of my statement "we developed a sense of pain for a reason", is implying that pain is not evil but good.

Edited August 21, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

You implied I hastily blamed nature for evils when you assumed I automatically thought these things (mentioned in your post) were 'bad'.

 

I mentioned neither "hasty" nor "nature". I don't like your broad use of the word nature, you use it interchangeably when you mean natural processes, and Earth's capabilities, and when you talk about nebulous essences that may or may not be conscious of us.

 

About Africans, for billions of years before they evolved to humans, they obviously weren't suffering as much. Humans are an advanced species, we don't come about through only passiveness, or only weakness, it takes hard work (years of survival, sometimes in tough conditions). It has not always been the case where South Africans were suffering.

 

I don't see what's "obvious" about the suffering of species leading up to humans. Don't all species "suffer" to some extent? Or are you saying humans suffer more than other species because we have high intelligence? Does high intelligence increase suffering ("they obviously weren't suffering as much")?

 

When you talk about "Africans", are you talking about human Africans? Because you also talk about billions of years before humans evolved, so it's a bit unclear.

 

Humans are no more "advanced" than any other species. That's not how evolution works. Other species aren't "advancing" towards becoming human. We just have high intelligence, but that alone isn't what gives us our adaptive capabilities and allow us some control over our environment.

 

Suffering is yet another subjective assessment you're trying to generalize. Do you think everything is suffer-free in "nature"?

[s1eep]

I don't see what's "obvious" about the suffering of species leading up to humans. Don't all species "suffer" to some extent? Or are you saying humans suffer more than other species because we have high intelligence? Does high intelligence increase suffering ("they obviously weren't suffering as much")?

South Africa is renown for it's third world suffering, but their lives and habitats were not always as broken as they are today. It's obvious that, because they evolved to the form of a human, prior stages in evolution (we supposedly came from monkeys), they were not suffering to the extent we see today, they were prosperous to have been selected to continue.

When you talk about "Africans", are you talking about human Africans? Because you also talk about billions of years before humans evolved, so it's a bit unclear.

 

Yes, human Africans.

Humans are no more "advanced" than any other species. That's not how evolution works. Other species aren't "advancing" towards becoming human. We just have high intelligence, but that alone isn't what gives us our adaptive capabilities and allow us some control over our environment.

 

I'm not being egotistical when I say advanced. As well as the other species humans are advanced, and I would say the fact they are at the top of the food chain on Earth is showing that they have worldly value, or nature, that is above other animals.

Suffering is yet another subjective assessment you're trying to generalize. Do you think everything is suffer-free in "nature"?

 

No. Where one might see a duality between good and evil, I see good as the duality. One might say to prosper is the opposite to suffering, I think both cases are examples of good nature because they allow one to exist and survive in nature (which is formally represented by the greater good that's most significant to us; the planet in humanity's case). I'd say because everyone has to eat, they are programmed to some extent to act in a certain way throughout their life; they are automatically submissive to tasks indicated by the body. Our base selves are not unintelligent, they are like biological machines with intent already coded into their beings. And if you say not all cases people eat their food, then I would say that it's probable that food will be eaten and since this is consistent, this is the rational way a human should act, and (part of) the epitome of a human.

Edited August 21, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

South Africa is renown for it's third world suffering, but their lives and habitats were not always as broken as they are today. It's obvious that, because they evolved to the form of a human, prior stages in evolution (we supposedly came from monkeys), they were not suffering to the extent we see today, they were prosperous to have been selected to continue.

This is wrong on a couple of levels. First, we didn't "come from monkeys". Apes and humans share a common ancestor that was neither. Primates split from other mammals around 60 million years ago, so before prosimians we looked a lot like squirrels. Talk about suffering!

 

Second, being successful in your environment is one of the major survival drivers of evolution, and it doesn't care at all how much you did or didn't suffer. If you get to pass along your genes to offspring, it doesn't matter to evolution whether the road was tough or easy. It's not only the creatures who get the food that are successful. Sometimes it's just the ones that get the girl.

 

It's clear you think the suffering of today's South Africans (well, not all of them) was brought upon them by some unnatural cause, but you haven't come right out and said that modern humanity is unnatural.

 

I'm not being egotistical when I say advanced. As well as the other species humans are advanced, and I would say the fact they are at the top of the food chain on Earth is showing that they have worldly value, or nature, that is above other animals.

Please, if you learn one thing here, it should be how to think critically about what you're saying. "Advanced" is another subjective term when applied to evolution. You think you're more advanced than, say, a krill? What if I toss you in the ocean, who's more advanced now? Who is the more advanced flyer, you or the mosquito? Evolution is all about adaptation to your environment. If humans have enough cooperation, tools, and resources, our high intelligence allows us to manipulate the environment. Without them, your intelligence alone won't let you be a more advanced dam builder than a beaver.

 

No. Where one might see a duality between good and evil, I see good as the duality. One might say to prosper is the opposite to suffering, I think both cases are examples of good nature because they allow one to exist and survive in nature (which is formally represented by the greater good that's most significant to us; the planet in humanity's case). I'd say because everyone has to eat, they are programmed to some extent to act in a certain way throughout their life; they are automatically submissive to tasks indicated by the body. Our base selves are not unintelligent, they are like biological machines with intent already coded into their beings. And if you say not all cases people eat their food, then I would say that it's probable that food will be eaten and since this is consistent, this is the rational way a human should act, and (part of) the epitome of a human.

So much of the problem understanding where you're coming from is because you use all these terms like good and evil, where your definition and mine may not match with anyone else's, and yet you're trying to pitch this as a "we should all think this way" sort of proposition. Your black and white perspective doesn't allow for all the rich nuances we see in reality.

 

Poor people can be happy, we're not all programmed or automatically submissive, and we eat sometimes because we're hungry, and sometimes because we're bored, and sometimes because we don't want to waste it, and sometimes because we don't want someone else to eat it, and sometimes because we don't know when we'll eat next.

[Ringer]

No. Where one might see a duality between good and evil, I see good as the duality. One might say to prosper is the opposite to suffering, I think both cases are examples of good nature because they allow one to exist and survive in nature (which is formally represented by the greater good that's most significant to us; the planet in humanity's case). I'd say because everyone has to eat, they are programmed to some extent to act in a certain way throughout their life; they are automatically submissive to tasks indicated by the body. Our base selves are not unintelligent, they are like biological machines with intent already coded into their beings. And if you say not all cases people eat their food, then I would say that it's probable that food will be eaten and since this is consistent, this is the rational way a human should act, and (part of) the epitome of a human.

So you're saying if there is a high probability that people will do something that is the way people should act, therefore it is good? Does that hold true in small population samples? Meaning, would a behavior that would be maladaptive in, say, very hot climates such as wearing a lot of warm and insulated clothing be 'bad' there, but be 'good' in places that are very cold? If we can distribute 'good' and 'bad' in those ways (by small populations) that means places with a very high murder rate (meaning the probability of murdering or being murdered is very high)have a 'good' that is murdering or being murdered.

[s1eep]

This is wrong on a couple of levels. First, we didn't "come from monkeys". Apes and humans share a common ancestor that was neither. Primates split from other mammals around 60 million years ago, so before prosimians we looked a lot like squirrels. Talk about suffering!

 

Second, being successful in your environment is one of the major survival drivers of evolution, and it doesn't care at all how much you did or didn't suffer. If you get to pass along your genes to offspring, it doesn't matter to evolution whether the road was tough or easy. It's not only the creatures who get the food that are successful. Sometimes it's just the ones that get the girl.

 

It's clear you think the suffering of today's South Africans (well, not all of them) was brought upon them by some unnatural cause, but you haven't come right out and said that modern humanity is unnatural.

 

Please, if you learn one thing here, it should be how to think critically about what you're saying. "Advanced" is another subjective term when applied to evolution. You think you're more advanced than, say, a krill? What if I toss you in the ocean, who's more advanced now? Who is the more advanced flyer, you or the mosquito? Evolution is all about adaptation to your environment. If humans have enough cooperation, tools, and resources, our high intelligence allows us to manipulate the environment. Without them, your intelligence alone won't let you be a more advanced dam builder than a beaver.

 

So much of the problem understanding where you're coming from is because you use all these terms like good and evil, where your definition and mine may not match with anyone else's, and yet you're trying to pitch this as a "we should all think this way" sort of proposition. Your black and white perspective doesn't allow for all the rich nuances we see in reality.

 

Poor people can be happy, we're not all programmed or automatically submissive, and we eat sometimes because we're hungry, and sometimes because we're bored, and sometimes because we don't want to waste it, and sometimes because we don't want someone else to eat it, and sometimes because we don't know when we'll eat next.

1. The point I was making still stands, during the time humans were 'a lot like squirrels', they were not suffering in harsh conditions, otherwise they wouldn't have evolved into human (technically, a more advanced) form, and I guess it's only because they are human and a part of human affairs they are suffering; it's probably to do with their natures now, but that's a reflection of their attitude and judgement towards family-orientated survival, which is highly influenced by the surrounding elements.

 

I'm not imagining survival as a being or beings other than the survivor or survivors, it's probable that you will have an attempt at surviving because it would be inherently considered immoral not to... Think "we", as if there was a bond between us and planet, or us and nature (which again is best reflected to us by the planet). It doesn't care, but we will probably care---you will probably eat.

 

2. You don't believe that the universe can advance, but you believe in the advancement of technology? I don't believe you, I think we advanced out of the water, and have more mental freedom than a fish; there are more wants we can fulfil, we have less troubles, and we are, again, at the top of the food chain (it's less likely we'll get eaten). It's the same as you advancing in intelligence because you surrounded yourself with physics doctrine and people interested in physics, but the way it's done in nature beyond a single humans ability, or multiple individual (not connected in sexual intercourse) humans abilities.

 

3. And your misunderstanding is because you already have in your head an idea of good, and it's a totally different idea to the one I'm using, however, it's relative because it's only a reflection of the truth to the individual; a rather solipsistic view of good and evil where you are judged for every action---I'm not asking myself "was that good?" to some God, or to whoever judges me at the end, I'm being sure myself that it's good before I do things so that it's beneficent and not maleficent to programmed objectives like family-orientated survival.

 

Please try to reply to the semantics of the whole extract and less on individual extracts, because naturally, we think of things that the other may being up in debate while we are typing...

Edited August 22, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

The point I was making still stands, during the time humans were 'a lot like squirrels', they were not suffering in harsh conditions, otherwise they wouldn't have evolved into human (technically, a more advanced) form, and I guess it's only because they are human and a part of human affairs they are suffering; it's probably to do with their natures now, but that's a reflection of their attitude and judgement towards family-orientated survival, which is highly influenced by the surrounding elements.

Why do you think harsh conditions makes creatures evolve into humans? What makes you think our earlier ancestors didn't suffer in harsh conditions? You really should study evolution, you have a lot of misconceptions about it. You're only considered "advanced" in your own environment, surrounded by other humans and all your tools. As I said before, you aren't more advanced than some bacteria if we were to place you in an environment where they thrive and humans don't. Advanced is a subjective term.

 

2. You don't believe that the universe can advance, but you believe in the advancement of technology? I don't believe you, I think we advanced out of the water, and have more mental freedom than a fish; there are more wants we can fulfil, we have less troubles, and we are, again, at the top of the food chain (it's less likely we'll get eaten).

 

Once again you demonstrate how changing definitions really messes up a good conversation. Now you're using "advance" to mean move forward, where I was clearly using it to mean "a higher order" the way you first used it. Too frustrating. You keep responding to what you want me to mean, rather than what I wrote.

 

3. And your misunderstanding is because you already have in your head an idea of good, and it's a totally different idea to the one I'm using, however, it's relative because it's only a reflection of the truth to the individual; a rather solipsistic view of good and evil where you are judged for every action---I'm not asking myself "was that good?" to some God, or to whoever judges me at the end, I'm being sure myself that it's good before I do things so that it's beneficent and not maleficent to programmed objectives like family-orientated survival.

 

No. I'm not using "good" at all, for the reasons I've told you about twenty times.

 

And again, since you think there is someone there to "judge you at the end", you're no atheist.

 

Please try to reply to the semantics of the whole extract and less on individual extracts, because naturally, we think of things that the other may being up in debate while we are typing...

 

 

Far too many assumptions and misconceptions on your part, and since you get to torture the definitions of any word you choose to use, this is a pointless conversation. You can just keep shifting the goalposts and we learn nothing.

[s1eep]

Far too many assumptions and misconceptions on your part, and since you get to torture the definitions of any word you choose to use, this is a pointless conversation. You can just keep shifting the goalposts and we learn nothing.

Well, if you say so. but what I'm saying fits (and I know God 'fits'), and it's rational when I say the planet is a greater good; without that mentality, we are likely to fail.

Edited August 22, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

Well, if you say so. but what I'm saying fits (and I know God 'fits'), and it's rational when I say the planet is a greater good; without that mentality, we are likely to fail.

 

What you're saying has far too many caveats and requires a whole lot of explaining. Isn't it more rational and accurate to say "The planet as a whole is currently essential to our needs and must be carefully nurtured"? This would remove some of the ambiguities surrounding what different people consider "good". Being more precise is a hallmark of human communication. We can pack more information into our communication with precision, such as saying, "We all need water that has a Maximum Contaminant Level of x", rather than saying, "We all need clean water". Does that make sense to you, do you see the difference?

 

This whole greater/lesser good/evil nomenclature is clunky and open to far too much interpretation. Your message is drowned out in all the misunderstandings. Your signal isn't getting through the noise you've purposely created.

 

A new "mentality" isn't likely to form without more precision. After all, you've seen what happened with all the interpretations of religious doctrines. Ambiguity is not your friend.

[s1eep]

 

What you're saying has far too many caveats and requires a whole lot of explaining. Isn't it more rational and accurate to say "The planet as a whole is currently essential to our needs and must be carefully nurtured"? This would remove some of the ambiguities surrounding what different people consider "good". Being more precise is a hallmark of human communication. We can pack more information into our communication with precision, such as saying, "We all need water that has a Maximum Contaminant Level of x", rather than saying, "We all need clean water". Does that make sense to you, do you see the difference?

 

This whole greater/lesser good/evil nomenclature is clunky and open to far too much interpretation. Your message is drowned out in all the misunderstandings. Your signal isn't getting through the noise you've purposely created.

 

A new "mentality" isn't likely to form without more precision. After all, you've seen what happened with all the interpretations of religious doctrines. Ambiguity is not your friend.

 

I can think of a few reasons why using a simple explanation such as good can be useful; for one, not every human is science-literate, some people are, inter alia, religious (in this specific case they already have terms for good and evil); for two, people tend to use the creative parts of the brain and neglect the logical side, and some still seem to function fine; this is what I would call a 'pointless illness' or a 'pointless pain', that has uses of it's own, such as leaving people the space to be imaginative---rather than having a strict definition for everything, which may lead to less waste-output because they have less interest in harmful-to-the-species technology or productivity in non-beneficent areas, simply because they don't know about this stuff, and if we're talking on a mass-scale, success here would definitely ensue.